Any trends yet? The NDP seems to be going back and forth, while the Liberals are better off now than they were at the start of the campaign. The Conservatives could be slipping, while the Bloc seems to be.

Saturday, September 5, 2015
- A few polls this morning. One from Forum (still looking strange, but less strange than the last one) and the other from Léger. I've updated the Poll Tracker with these new numbers, and my analysis of the EKOS poll's effects on the Poll Tracker that was posted on the CBC last night will be updated shortly with this new information. I'll also try to have the riding projections updated later today.

- Another quiet day! But we wait with bated breath for the poll from EKOS that is supposed to come out today. In the meantime, I've updated the By-Election Barometer with the results of last night's vote in Calgary-Foothills and Simcoe North, as well as the new forecasts for the ridings of René-Lévesque and Whitby-Oshawa.

Thursday, September 3, 2015- I've profiled Edmonton Centre as today's riding to watch. Will it be a three-way race? An NDP victory to mirror the provincial win in May? Or will the Conservatives benefit from a split of the vote?

- Quiet day on the polling front, though there are some interesting numbers from Abacus Data here at Maclean's. Trudeau leads on fun, Harper on running a country and a business. But Harper's lead on those issues was not as large over Mulcair as he would like it to be, and Mulcair was up on things like giving career advice or negotiating a contract.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015- The latest episode of the Pollcast is out. This week, I'm joined by Bill Curry of The Globe and Mail and Josh Wingrove of Bloomberg - two journalists who know their stuff on the economy. So we talked about the economy and its impact on this campaign.

- Nanos is out with its latest four-week sample (his last one before going to a nightly tracking poll?). Must have been a lot of movement in either the latest week or the week that was dropped off the poll to move the Conservatives from first to third.

All parties have candidates who cant declare or actively campaign until after Labour day , due to statutes or union contracts - another reason why a long campaign has made for quiet campaigns in many ridings.

The only reason to have an early election call was for Harper to get out in front of the Duffy trial.

The weakest parties were compelled by their respective circumstances to expend some powder whilst the two stronger parties have been very conservative (sorry, Tom) in this regard. This is about to change.

May's voice has dropped a tone. A shot at gravitas, perhaps? Justin's is almost as low. The window for both is about to close as the big boys get ready to rumble.

In any case, the paring is done: Harper and May are the most dangerous for the country, so we all have to count on Tom and Justin to do as well as they can without splitting the anti-Harper-May vote. I get the horrible feeling that Greens numbers benefit from those who're frustrated---with little real understanding why---that Tom and Justin haven't formed a coalition yet, and not so much that they're really green Green.

May, recently campaigning out here in BC, has been disingenuous with her interpretation of balance-of-power prospects (swears Greens don't split votes)---but of course, when she's preaching to the converted, she's confident a significant number think we already have proportional representation. At least that's how she talks.

The whole shootin' match gonna look different in about a week-and-a-half. Can't wait.

PS: never heard so much talk about strategic voting as I have this time.

Calling your stance on the Greens condescending may be putting it mildly. Your fear is that the Liberals and NDP are splitting "anti-Harper-May vote?" I don't see how May factors into that at all, this is just anti Harper...

Lac St Louis on Montreal island (West Island) is not going to be an 81% liberal win. There were 2000 votes between the Liberal and NDP last time and another 2000 votes between NDP and Conservative. What ever your method is,( I suspect you are extrapolating national averages ) this one is too close to call. As there are only 7 Liberal MPs from Quebec , all Liberal held ridings are precious and bear closer scrutiny than national tendencies provide.The NDP have a good chance to take this one.

Thanks for the tip.- I did read it over. I stand corrected on that. Talking with neighbours and friends - thou not a scientific survey - indicates that some voters in this riding are switching to the NDP and the NDP need a majority in the house.

Hey, Eric, I don't suppose you could use a darker orange for the NDP numbers, could you? The orange you have now is almost yellow, and it's not enough contrast against a white background, which makes it hard to read. Thanks.

Looks like it amounts to overkill with the Justin Not Ready ads. They reached the saturation point and have lost their value as regards impact on potential voters. Big strategic error by the CPC that could likely cost Harper the election. They started too early and ran too long. They've become a yawn.

It would be ironic, if Mulcair were to win a majority because of Conservative attack ads against the Liberals. In a two-way race, attack ads are strategically smart. In a three-way race, they might just upset the divide between the other options.

So far, the only race between the Liberals and Conservatives has been for second place. Conservative attack ads directed against Trudeau have no bearing on the current frontrunner - the NDP, so they wouldn't be costing either the Liberals or the Conservatives a win.

Late to comment sorry, but the Conservatives pounding down the liberals, leaving the NDP untouched has the effect of forcing the Liberals to fend off the NDP, instead of merely attack the CPC. It has the effect of having them blow powder against themselves.

I don't know how many of you saw last mights Power And Politics show? But the explosion by Chris Alexander against Rosie Barton was really, really a disaster !!

And tody we find out Alexander has suspended his re-election campaign to rush back to Ottawa and try to fix some of the real screw ups his Dept, Immigration, has caused. In particular that photo circulated worldwide of a dead 3 yr old boy in the surf off Turkey. And guess who had rejected the boys application to come to Canada from Syria ??

Chris Alexander was back tonight as Rosie's first guest > She just "killed" him!! And the real attempt to spin has hit a brick wall as we find out from today's Guardian that Russian troops are in Syria fighting for Assad !!

Fighting ISIS or Assad only produces more refugees !! Better to focus on getting those currently in that state out of harms way. Not fighting to produce more !!

Yes, CIC gives the option to "voluntarily withdraw" an application before they reject it, and you save the bulk of the application fee. I know people that have had their application lost by CIC, and their tracking is very haphazard.

There is a very real possibility that the picture of that dead little boy washed up alone on the beach will be associated with the Harper Government. If that's the case, their campaign is derailed and destroyed beyond any comprehension.

It's not a made up story. The photo was real and a child died. If the response from the Conservatives - or their supporters - was that this was "made up" they'll come away from this worse regardless of the narrative not being the same as what was originally said. This is why regardless of what happens I think the Conservatives are screwed.

Which part is made up? That the boy is dead? That a NDP MP hand delivered the refugee application in March? Or that CIC denied the applicable in June as it was "too complicated"?

At the very least, this should serve as a prompt for how obfuscated and subjective our immigration system is, but doesn't have to be. My wife and step-daughter are currently immigrating under the family plan, and I sponsored a refugee from Iran back in 2004. You put together your best package and mail it to Mississauga; you wait a month and then they send you an email saying they received it; you wait another month and they say you can be a sponsor; then they send the application to the source country and it takes between 10 to 36 months longer to be approved, all the while having no inclination of what to expect.

The part that the family was trying to get to Canada. They were trying to get to Sweden. And the part that they had applied for refugee status and had been denied. There was no application. Essentially any connection to Canada or the immigration Minister was completely made up.

Please read the BBC - World News (Sept. 4/2015) about ' The story of the Alan Kurdis Family '.

The Kurdis family application was rejected bythis government in June 2015.

The Kurdis family did set out for Canada; a family member was attempting to arrange a private(family) sponsorship.

In June, Conservative Minister for Immigration - Christopher Alexander - did receive a hand-delivered Letter from an NDP Member of Parliament, requesting the Minister review and help the Kurdis family.

There was no reply from Immigration Minister Chris Alexander.

Will you please cite the source you used for your version of the details you have asserted here ?

Out of respect for the Kurdis Family tragedy will you please correct any/all mis-statements you may have made, inadvertantly, while defending this government's action/inaction ?

I agree with Fresh Orange. These responses are anything but sympathetic to the loss the Kurdis family is facing and I think you owe them an apology. If these are the talking points that Conservative Party Central is sending out to its supporters, they can expect to maintain the third place finish that polls are beginning to echo now.

As someone on the ground in Edmonton Centre this race will be interesting to watch because it pits 'momentum' (NDP, riding provincial victory) versus preparation (Liberal campaign identifying voters for more than a year with candidate in place). If it is a close race the year-long preparation will probably put the Liberals over the top.

I'm dying for a new poll to come out! lol. I just have this feeling that Liberals are eventually going to top a poll. If they start topping multiple polls and the media reports the Liberals in the lead, we could start seeing some ABC voters switching their vote back from NDP.

This election is nutty. I'm betting if the Cons drop to 3rd for a few polls in a row we start seeing Greens grow as it becomes 'safe' to vote Green without fear of 'splitting the vote'. I am so sick of hearing that Greens split the vote when it is obvious if the Libs & NDP worked even a tiny bit together (run weak candidates when the other has a strong one for example, rather than a battle royale in places the Cons can sneak up and win like in Kenora) they could make more of a difference than any efforts by Green voters.

The Liberals and the NDP are not interchangeable. Why would a social democratic party collaborate with a corporatist party (and vice versa)? They do not share common ground. Even the social programmes that former (distantly former) Liberal governments have been praised for simply took those policies from the NDP and watered them down.

Basically the Libs & NDP both keep telling Green voters to 'stop splitting the vote'. My point is the vote split is more Lib/NDP than Green/anyone as Greens have yet to reach 10% overall in an election while the NDP had over 10% in all but 2 ridings last time. So no question if there is a split to allow Harper to win it is an NDP/Liberal issue, not a Green one.

Your point is a fair one, I was just responding to this phrase : " if the Libs & NDP worked even a tiny bit together"... There's no basis for them to work together, nor should there be. The Liberals and the Conservatives have far more in common than the Liberals and NDP do. Even on social issues the Liberals have lagged far behind the NDP (for example, as late as the 1980s numerous and prominent Liberal MPs were openly anti-choice, whereas as choice had long been a key plank in the NDP platform). As for economic issues, the Liberals are an establishment, business party.

No argument on how the Libs are more like the Cons and the NDP is more how the Libs used to be. The Greens are moving into the old NDP role of being the soul of Parliament. The ones you look to for ethical decisions instead of 'how do I win overall' decisions.

I’ve noticed a string of polls having the NDP slipping, but that doesn’t seem to be having any kind of pronounced effect on your aggregated data. Everyone’s more or less the same as before. Is there a reason for this? I find it odd that polls showing a reduction in the gap between the parties isn’t manifesting itself here. The NDP’s 4 point lead being shown here seems a bit inflated to me.

Why is it when the NDP is polling high, like 5+% over the second and 9+% over third place it's a close three way race; but when the NDP drops 3 points in one poll it suddenly the NDP are loosing their comfortable lead?

Not targeting you Eric, just frustrated at the optics that the MSM presents with the NDP. When we're up (for three months), all the news is how we're in the tightest race in history and it anyone's election, but a drop in one poll and suddenly it's, the NDP are in free fall.

Because 18-30 year olds don't vote in the same proportion as their census data would suggest and the vote is concentrated In Quebec. In reality, the NDP would probably place 3rd, if an election were held today with a voter turnout model that actually reflected voter turnout and not a census.

shoshana, you should actually read the polls, rather than presuming you know what they say. The NDP has been polling in first or second in most polls in all age groups - their vote isn't concentrated in youth the way it has been in the past. And the NDP has been polling in first place or second in every region of the country, so their vote is not "concentrated in Quebec".

It's unreasonable to say they are "out to lunch" when they are capturing the same trend as other pollsters. Their methodology may produce different raw numbers, but the trend is consistent - the Conservatives are down to third place, the Liberals are up to second and the NDP are bobbing along not much different from where they were before.

If the Cons stay in 3rd for long I expect to see Green support start to climb as people begin to feel safe to vote as they want since if Harper is in 3rd he'll have no chance to form government. It'll be interesting to see what the Cons do with that massive war chest if they keep dropping and the ads don't work.

"The New Democratic Party has the support of 31 per cent of respondents at the national level, ahead of the Liberals at 30 per cent and Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party at 28 per cent. However, Mr. Léger said the Liberals have picked up one point a week during the campaign, closing the gap with the NDP nationally."

The podcasts are a great addition this campaign for us political junkies. Great job, Eric!

The results in AB and BC will be interesting to watch in terms of modeling: Eric is much more generous than I am with the Liberals, probably because geometric swing implies a much more efficient Liberal vote in those areas than arithmetic swing. As a result of that, my less aggressive discounting of older polls, and an adjustment I make to try taking into account voter turnout, I still have the Tories marginally ahead.

True but there is a big difference between the other polls which show them as a competitive 2nd/3rd and Forum which shows them as a Rump party with implausible numbers in Ontario. Forum clearly has something going on in it's samples, it's either catching something that no one else is, or is more likely they are just junk polls.

It's hard to call the Forum polls "junk" when they are showing a trend consistent with other polls. Truthfully, the only people I've come across who outright dismiss these polls are the ones who are having a difficult time digesting the strong desire for a change of government and it being reflected in the current third place showing of the Conservatives.

They aren't showing a trend consistent with other polls. Everyone else shows the CPC losing maybe 1-2 points, and in a competitive second or third place. With the margin between all the parties to be about 4-7 points. Forum has shown the NDP at 40% two weeks ago and 17 points up on the CPC. This week they still had the CPC 4 points lower than anyone else has.

Truthfully the only people I've come across that don't outright dimiss these polls are the ones that have a hard time digesting the strong Conservative base that exists and have no desire to vote for two parties consistently trying to outflank one another on the left which is being reflected by the current competitive 2nd or 3rd place standing of the Conservatives in all but the Forum polls.

This isn't about Forum. It's about a consistent downward trend for the Conservatives across multiple polls. I'm afraid your partisan bias is showing, DouglasEdward. You guys really need to be supplied with new talking points.

But....if there is a downward trend it is only of 2 points or so. There has been ever so slight movement so far in the polling. It is very close and often the differences between parties if within the margin of error.

It's funny how when the CPC was at 28.3% and LPC was at 26.9% on the poll tracker, none of the conservatives on here were saying the LPC were a competitive 2nd or 3rd place, yet now the CPC is at 26.9% and LPC is at 30.2%.

You have to go back to August 10 to have a bigger gap between second and third.

Next week's numbers will reflect the influence of the tragic photo of the drowned boy with Canadian relatives trying to get them to Canada and the so far wooden response of the CPC. Perhaps if they donned sackcloth and ashes and flew planes to Turkey to pick up refugees, they could beg forgiveness.

It's going to be interesting to see how the public reacts to candidates urinating in homeowner's cups and mocking the mentally ill while the knowledge of the Kurdi family tragedy is still fresh in their mind. Party talking points are going to have a hard time dismissing those as "fabrications" or "lies" the same way they are with the tragic story of a family's death - which I must say, is the definition of poor taste and absolutely despicable!

I am very, very curious how the mess in Syria will affect things as Harper coming out and saying that his solution is more military, which is opposite of what most seem to say/think/feel. He basically is pushing to his base and hoping that he'll get well over 50% to show up and vote while the Libs & NDP get sub 50% showing up to the polls.

More military rarely is the solution. The more the West is directly involved, the more radicalized the Middle East becomes. Canada should be concentrating on our historic role as peace-keepers and providing security in the border regions, so that people believe there is a viable alternative to ISIS control.

This whole situation is a by-product of military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ideally they would be free and not have to worry about various factions fighting but this is the real world, not a fantasy one. No matter how much military we send in the fighting will continue. The US or Russia could solve it as both have the power (military and financial) to change things.

Sadly our current PM doesn't seem to 'get it'. He thinks more bombs will sell to the Canadian public but early returns are not in his favour.

Historic role as peacekeepers? So you're choosing to define history only as the period from Pearson-Chrétien (and even Chrétien was behind one of our most successful combat missions - in Bosnia - where we went in as peacekeepers but then MADE peace by completely ignoring our UN orders).

Canada's "historic" role as peacekeepers lasted 30 years.

What do you think Peacekeepers would do in Syria right now? Peacekeepers are just war fighters with different objectives, but they're still soldiers, and soldiers are tools used to kill people and blow stuff up. That's what soldiers are for. We don't want to have to use them, but sometimes we do.

Before ISIS came along and destabilised the region, Assad was losing that war. The civil war would be done by now if not for ISIS. And now ISIS, which as far as I can tell is a doomsday cult, controls a large area and isn't likely to negotiate with anyone.

John what everybody ignores and it is very important is the amount that Russia is involved in the Syria war. Russia has troops in Syria fighting in support of Assad!! Now after 4 years of Civil War this is a really bad development. Note Isis would like to get involved but are barely on the fringe. So Harper is, as usual, full of shite !!

Militarially, I would define our history in four blocks: 1867-1899 Foundational Period; 1900-1955 Boer War/WWI/WWII/Korea (Closest to UK); 1956-1993 Peacekeepers; 1994-2015 Modern Period (Closest to US). Of these four, the Peacekeeper era is where Canada had the most global respect.

The difference between fighting a war and keeping the peace is the scope and role of the mission. Yes, Peacekeepers kill and fight, but they do that to protect the civilians. A war of agression (against ISIS) means taking out the enemy is the priority.

One of my two best friends is a Captian in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is more than a tool, and he is capable of much more than just blowing stuff up. I agree that sometimes violence is the only response possible, but there is so much more we could be doing.

ISIS is a splinter group from Al-Quida, and now the two groups are in a global competition to say who is the more radical and should be the voice of extreme Islam. Saying the Assad Civil War would be done by now if not for ISIS, is like saying Harper would be PM again now if not for the NDP and LPC, they are part of the story. One reason ISIS controls a large area is because they are giving people safety and security that they didn't have in the months and years prior. People will put up with a lot if they can just live their lives.

Humanitarian aid and peacekeepers would help some of the 4 million displaced people. A wall would do little, but if your first choice is to let the sort it out themselves, that we shouldn't be there, why do you support more military action?

And if you could end the military conflict tomorrow, I'd agree, but these are real people with real suffering in the meantime.

Our immigration rules have changed immensely under Harper, and it a bureaucratic nightmare. It currently takes about seven weeks for CIC to open a new immigration application and send a receipt email/letter.

I have repeatedly suggested that we can do more just by changing the rules. For example, the financial requirement to sponsor a pre-approved refugee claim is a minimum of 5,000 in a chequing account for a minimum of 6 months.

The Syrians shouldn't get special treatment, we should reform the system to that is choking off our ability to respond to this crisis. It's taken this well-documented crisis to raise awareness of the issue.

It’s one example of the burden of proof in submitting an application. In general, it means there is a six month period of getting everything organized before an application can be submitted. So all the fundraising going on now means that maybe someone can be sponsored next year.

I agree that the system should be independent of the quantity, but there is no capacity in the system to respond to bulges in the quantity of applications. There is nothing done quickly by the CIC.

Actually, that's not how the system actually works. They set staffing levels based on the targeted processing levels. If we are indifferent to bulges, we effectively are banning immigration from problematic regions.

You are now separating "economic" immigrants from everyone else. Which do you prefer, equal access for all, or preferred access for skilled workers?

Economically, it makes more sense to allow family members to be reunited rather than having the continual outflow of remittance. We are great at importing skilled workers, but very poor at allowing those skilled workers to work in their field of study.

I'm going to guess that you are a third or more generation Canadian. Simply sending more military forces doesn't do anything to address the immediate needs of the crisis. Did you read any of General Hiller's suggestions on how we can do both?

I want to apply our regular immigration rules to everyone equally. So any refugees who are accepted outside those rules need to be kept separate somehow so we can run them through the system later, or send them back if they don't want to apply.

What is the point of having immigration rules if these people aren't governed by them?

Many refugees do return to their country of origin if/when the conditions at home change. Our current immigration rules don't apply equally to all applicants, so there is nothing stopping a new catagory being created. In general, this would be a long-term temporary resident visa, similar to the parental super-visa (5 years, multiple entry, maximum 6 months at any time) with a few adjustments.

We can change the rules to better reflect the reality of the world, rather than letting people die while they struggle to cut through needless red tape.

How well do we track them once they're here? Germany has a great system for that, but it works because the German government knows where everyone lives all of the time (you have to inform the government when you move). We need to find a way not to lose these people.

Sure, let's change the rules. But I want those rules to apply universally. That the system is unfair (has multiple categories) now is not a reason to keep it unfair.

While I am in favour of a completely revamped system, it doesn’t mean we can’t make incremental changes to make it more fair than it currently is. As an analogy, if I object to tax credits in general and prefer a simplified tax code with a higher “tax-free” level, that doesn’t mean that reducing/enhancing income splitting isn’t worth doing.

We can have immediate action with a band-aide solution, while working towards systematic reform.

As for tracking in Canada, CBSA does keep track of people as best they can on their budget, but enforcement generally only falls to Category A and B offenders, those that entered Canada under false pretenses and with a criminal record of violence/sexual offenses. In addition, they issue warrants for the arrest and deportation of people that violate their Record of Entry, but need to be detained for another offense.

There are a lot more controls on the free-movement of cattle than people. CBSA doesn't have the resources, authority, or infrastructure for wholesale monitoring of the immigrant population. I can't think of anything short of microchipping people on entry/birth that would be reasonably effective.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.